This feature affects the game balance. The experienced players can identify the enemy units by this 3d view, even if they spotters can't identify this units. This is not right, because of player - is a commander, but not a spotter.This feature can be changed by changing the names of the units for each type of them like: small/average/big squad, wheeled/trucked vehicle, plane, copter...EDITED: Or we can not show the unit preview when the unit is unidentified. Just show a text with unit type name.In addition we can replace the units models by a "type model". Then the players wouldn't identify units by themself even when zoom in.

Booster wrote:This feature affects the game balance. The experienced players can identify the enemy units by this 3d view, even if they spotters can't identify this units. This is not right, because of player - is a commander, but not a spotter.This feature can be changed by changing the names of the units for each type of them like: small/average/big squad, wheeled/trucked vehicle, plane, copter...EDITED: Or we can not show the unit preview when the unit is unidentified. Just show a text with unit type name.In addition we can replace the units models by a "type model". Then the players wouldn't identify units by themself even when zoom in.

On that note I motion that we also remove the "target ground" command as it is heavily affecting balance by allowing more experienced players rain artillery, plane bombs and such based on their experience and intuition, even if the targets are mechanically hidden. This is tantamount to hacking since it gives an unfair advantage to the player using the function. The player is a commander, not a jtac spotter.

Sleksa wrote:On that note I motion that we also remove the "target ground" command as it is heavily affecting balance by allowing more experienced players rain artillery, plane bombs and such based on their experience and intuition, even if the targets are mechanically hidden. This is tantamount to hacking since it gives an unfair advantage to the player using the function. The player is a commander, not a jtac spotter.

But this is not the same! The experienced players using the game mechanics better then the new players, I agree with it, but the spotting mechanic are broken because of the unit view. This game have about ~1000 unique units! How do you think, how much time the new player need to remember all of them, its characteristics and how they look like? The experienced players can purchase a cheaper units with a good optic and identify an enemy by unit view, but the new players can't! This unintelligent mechanic leaves a bad impression about this game. But this game are good and can be better.

To be honest this sounds like an over reaction. Saying it on the same lines as hacking is absurd.

Weapon trails are more important clues to what unit.Heavy AA, IR AA, Artillery, Cannon, ATGM etc.Silhouette of gives a rough indicator.Looks like T-72 point can range from 35pt - 150pts.Many variants of Leopard 1.Abrams price Range from 65 - 180pts

The fire target is incredibly mirco intensive.A good example is when a Hidden ATGM shoots at a tank, with no recon to locate them. The player has to be very accurate on where they force fire, or itll do nothing.

I use a lot of recon so I usually get a preview of the text anyway. Didn't think this was a big deal lol

James-Bond wrote:To be honest this sounds like an overreaction. Saying it on the same lines as hacking is absurd.

Weapon trails are more important clues to what unit.Heavy AA, IR AA, Artillery, Cannon, ATGM etc.Silhouette of gives a rough indicator.Looks like T-72 point can range from 35pt - 150pts.Many variants of Leopard 1.Abrams price Range from 65 - 180pts

The fire target is incredibly micro intensive.A good example is when a Hidden ATGM shoots at a tank, with no recon to locate them. The player has to be very accurate on where they force fire, or it'll do nothing.

There are tiny differences in the models though, like the ERA layouts for the T-72s, different guns on the earlier Abrams and the commander's independent thermal sight on the M1A2.

IircMadmat said It was made for new players actually so that they can see what the unit is doing without zooming in and out in the midst of a rapid battle it can be difficult for new players to understand what is actually happening

Now perhaps eugen can make a typical model for inf tanks and so on to represent what the unit is doing but i think it is not necessary

Why?On the battlefield there are situations where you cannot clearly identify the enemy unit.

ExampleThe enemy unit looks like a T-80 but it is not clear which type it is. It might be a T-80, T-80B or just a T-72.

ConclusionI mean I get your point. Some units are identifiable by just looking at their silhouette once but this does not apply for everything and every situation.And exactly this is kind of situation is realistic and not a game breaker.

James-Bond wrote:To be honest this sounds like an overreaction. Saying it on the same lines as hacking is absurd.

Weapon trails are more important clues to what unit.Heavy AA, IR AA, Artillery, Cannon, ATGM etc.Silhouette of gives a rough indicator.Looks like T-72 point can range from 35pt - 150pts.Many variants of Leopard 1.Abrams price Range from 65 - 180pts

The fire target is incredibly micro intensive.A good example is when a Hidden ATGM shoots at a tank, with no recon to locate them. The player has to be very accurate on where they force fire, or it'll do nothing.

There are tiny differences in the models though, like the ERA layouts for the T-72s, different guns on the earlier Abrams and the commander's independent thermal sight on the M1A2.

In RL is very hard to find anybody who in combat can identify the very small differencies between for ex. between an Leo2A1 and A0.I always thougt the ID capability is over modeled in RD while the detection capability is undermodeled...

The biggest overmodeling is 100% accurate ID for AC with loadout. So you can identify an F-16 or F-18 with different loadout at long range...